trump

Laura Farnsworth Dogu is not, at first glance, your typical Trump appointee.

A career diplomat with postings under the Obama and Biden administrations, she represents a branch of government President Trump has cut back and long vilified.

Yet her selection for Trump’s top envoy to Venezuela signals a rare strategic choice, leveraging her experience with authoritarian regimes at a moment when Washington is recalibrating its approach to Caracas after the overthrow of Nicolás Maduro.

“There are not very many cases in this administration where they have relied on a career diplomat,” says Elliott Abrams, who served as Trump’s special representative for Venezuela in 2019. “This is actually an anomaly.”

Abrams suggests the appointment of Dogu — who met with the interim president, Delcy Rodríguez, in Caracas on Monday — could reflect a desire for a seasoned expert to manage day-to-day diplomacy as the administration embarks on one of its most complex foreign policy undertakings.

“What he really needs is a professional to oversee the embassy and do the traditional diplomatic things while all policy is made in Washington,” Abrams said, referring to Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Dogu, 62, arrived in Venezuela on Saturday to reopen the U.S. Embassy. She is recognized in Central America for her methodical, approachable style and deep understanding of Latin America’s political and cultural dynamics. However, her direct and outspoken approach has also led to controversy, with enraged officials in Honduras once wanting to declare her persona non grata.

Her new position as chargé d’affaires augments a career that includes senior roles in hostage recovery for the FBI and as ambassador to Nicaragua and Honduras during periods characterized by social and political volatility.

Before taking on her new position, she served as the foreign policy advisor to Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the leader of the operation that targeted Maduro. Her office did not respond to a request for interview.

Her experience navigating authoritarian governments and fragmented opposition movements makes her a pragmatic choice for a volatile post-Maduro transition. In a Senate hearing on Jan. 28, Rubio stressed the post’s importance for restoring a limited U.S. mission to gather intelligence and engage with Venezuelan stakeholders.

Dogu will be tasked with navigating Venezuela’s fractured opposition, which includes leaders inside the country, exiles abroad and figures struggling for influence in a potential transition. Abrams, the veteran diplomat, said engaging opposition actors, such as Maria Corina Machado, is a core diplomatic responsibility, particularly in a country the United States does not recognize as having a legitimate government. At the same time, maintaining relations with the turbulent, divided government will be her responsibility as well.

Abrams also cautioned that Washington priorities will define Dogu’s mission, and those priorities might not always align neatly with democratic objectives.

“The question is how the administration defines the interests of the United States,” Abrams said. “Does it include a free and democratic Venezuela? I don’t think we really know the answer yet.”

A family ethos of public service

A Texas resident and the daughter of a career Navy officer, Dogu often traces her commitment to public service to her upbringing in a military family. That ethos shaped her diplomatic career and has been a defining thread across generations, with both of her sons also serving in the military.

She has received multiple State Department honors, speaks Spanish, Turkish and Arabic and served in Mexico, El Salvador, Egypt, Turkey and Morocco.

Diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Venezuela have been suspended since 2019. She takes over from John McNamara, who had served as chargé d’affaires since February 2025 and traveled to Venezuela in January to discuss the potential reopening of the embassy.

According to a statement, Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yván Gil Pinto, indicated that the two governments will hold discussions to establish a “roadmap on matters of bilateral interest” and resolve disagreements through mutual respect and diplomatic dialogue.

Dogu is no stranger to Venezuelan issues. During a 2024 news conference, while serving as ambassador to Honduras, she publicly criticized the participation of sanctioned Venezuelan officials in Honduran government events.

“It’s surprising for me to see [Honduran] government officials sitting with members of a cartel based in Venezuela,” Dogu said at the time, referring to a meeting between the government of President Xiomara Castro and Venezuela’s defense minister, Vladimir Padrino López.

The United States has accused Padrino López of involvement in a conspiracy to distribute cocaine, and there is a $15-million reward for information resulting in his arrest or conviction.

Years earlier, Dogu had offered a blunt assessment of Venezuela’s economic collapse. Speaking in 2019 at Indiana University’s Latin American Studies program, she described Venezuela as “a very wealthy country, [with] huge oil supplies, but they’ve managed to drive their economy into the ground,” the Indiana Gazette reported.

Crisis and confrontations

Nominated by President Obama to serve as ambassador to Nicaragua in 2015, she said at her confirmation hearing that Obama had “rightly maintained” that “no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by another.” She added: “America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election.”

Dogu left her Nicaragua post in October 2018 amid nationwide protests and a severe government crackdown that resulted in at least 355 deaths, according to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. At the time, Dogu said she learned from authorities that paramilitary groups had targeted her for death.

In 2019, she linked the unrest in Nicaragua to the Cold War, citing an “unfortunate negative synergy” among Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela. “We never left the Cold War in Latin America,” she said.

Nicaraguan opposition figures, many now exiled, remember Dogu as an accessible diplomat. Former presidential candidate Juan Sebastián Chamorro called her a “methodical and approachable official” who upheld State Department policy and democratic principles.

Lesther Alemán, then a student leader who frequently interacted with Dogu during the 2018 protests, described her as publicly blunt but privately empathetic. Alemán emphasized Dogu’s ability to engage “all sides of the coin,” making her effective with both the “authoritarian governments and with the opposition.”

Alemán said Dogu initially had a good relationship with the Nicaraguan government, including a personal friendship with then-first lady and current co-President Rosario Murillo. However, that relationship soured after Dogu publicly supported opposition groups during the political crisis.

Her experience in Honduras proved more contentious. After Dogu made her statements regarding Venezuela, Rasel Tomé, vice president of the National Congress and a senior figure in the governing Liberty and Refoundation Party, urged lawmakers to declare her “persona non grata.”

Tomé justified this request by accusing her of making “interventionist statements” directed at the government.

Criticism continued after Dogu’s departure from Honduras in 2025. An opinion column published by the Committee of Relatives of the Disappeared in Honduras argued that her relationship with the country had been marked by distrust.

“Although Ambassador Laura Dogu makes an effort to say goodbye amicably,” the piece read, “we all know that the relationship between her and Honduras was not sincere because it was disrespectful; it was not trustworthy because it was interventionist.”

This week, the U.S. Embassy posted online an upbeat video of showing Dogu entering the mission, meeting with Venezuelans and outlining plans for what she calls a “friendly, stable, prosperous and democratic” Venezuela. “Our presence marks a new chapter,” she says, “and I’m ready to get to work.”

Mojica Loaisiga is a special correspondent writing for The Times under the auspices of the International Center for Journalists.

US President Donald Trump lashed out at a journalist, calling her the ‘worst reporter’, after she questioned him about survivors of the late financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Trump’s name appears in the Epstein files. He has not been accused of any crimes by Epstein’s victims and has denied any wrongdoing.

US President Donald Trump has said that talks with Iran are continuing to try to de-escalate tensions in the Gulf, even as the US military announced shooting down an Iranian drone that approached its aircraft carrier in the Arabian Sea.

For months, United States President Donald Trump has called him a “sick man” and an “illegal drug leader”.

But on Tuesday, Trump welcomed his Colombian counterpart, Gustavo Petro, to the White House for their first face-to-face meeting in Washington, DC.

Both leaders hailed the meeting as productive, while acknowledging the lingering tensions that divide them.

At a news conference after their meeting, Petro waved away questions about his rocky history with Trump, whom he has publicly accused of human rights violations.

Instead, he called the interaction “ a meeting between two equals who have different ways of thinking”.

“He didn’t change his way of his thinking. Neither did I. But how do you do an agreement, a pact? It’s not as between twin brothers. It’s between opponents,” Petro said.

Separately, Trump told reporters from the Oval Office that he felt good about the meeting. “I thought it was terrific,” he said.

On the agenda for the two leaders were issues including the fight against transnational drug trafficking and security in Latin America.

Here are five takeaways from Tuesday’s meeting.

A White House charm offensive

Over the past year, Trump has invited the media to participate in his meetings with foreign leaders, often holding news conferences with the visiting dignitaries in the Oval Office.

Not this time, however. The meeting between Trump and Petro lasted nearly two hours, all of it behind closed doors.

But the two leaders emerged with largely positive things to say about one another.

In a post on social media, Petro revealed that Trump had gifted him several items, including a commemorative photograph of their meeting accompanied by a signed note.

“Gustavo – a great honor. I love Colombia,” it read, followed by Trump’s signature.

In another post, Petro showed off a signed copy of Trump’s book, The Art of the Deal. On its title page, Trump had scrawled another note to Petro: “You are great.”

“Can someone tell me what Trump said in this dedication?” Petro wrote jokingly in Spanish on social media. “I don’t understand much English.”

A turning point in a tense relationship?

Petro’s joke appeared to be a cheeky nod to his notoriously rocky relationship with Trump.

It was only six days into Trump’s second term, on January 26, 2025, that he and Petro began their feud, trading threats on social media over the fate of two US deportation flights.

Petro objected to the reported human rights violations facing the deportees. Trump, meanwhile, took Petro’s initial refusal to accept the flights as a threat to US “national security”. Petro ultimately backed down after Trump threatened steep sanctions on imported Colombian goods.

They continued to trade barbs in the months since. Petro, for instance, has condemned the deadly US attacks on boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, comparing the strikes with murder.

He has also criticised Trump for carrying out a US military offensive in Venezuela to abduct then-President Nicolas Maduro. That attack, Petro said, was tantamount to “kidnapping”.

Trump, meanwhile, stripped Petro of his US visa following the Colombian leader’s appearance at the United Nations General Assembly, where he criticised the US and briefly joined a pro-Palestinian protest.

The Trump administration also sanctioned Petro in October, blaming the left-wing leader for allowing “drug cartels to flourish”.

After removing Maduro from power on January 3, Trump offered a warning to Petro: he had better “watch his a**”. The statement was widely interpreted to be a threat of military action against Colombia.

But Trump and Petro appeared to have reached a turning point last month. On January 7, the two leaders held their first call together. Tuesday’s in-person meeting marked another first in their relationship.

Agreeing to disagree

Despite the easing tensions, the two leaders used their public statements after the meeting to reaffirm their differences.

Trump was the first to speak, holding a news conference in the Oval Office as he signed legislation to end a government shutdown.

The US president, a member of the right-wing Republican Party, used the appearance to reflect on the political tensions the two leaders had in the lead-up to the meeting.

“He and I weren’t exactly the best of friends, but I wasn’t insulted, because I’d never met him,” Trump told reporters.

He added that Tuesday’s meeting was nevertheless pleasant. “I didn’t know him at all, and we got along very well.”

Petro, meanwhile, held a longer news conference at the Colombian Embassy in Washington, DC, where he raised some points of divergence he had with Trump.

Among the topics he mentioned was Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, which the US has supported, and sustainable energy initiatives designed to be carbon neutral. Trump, in the past, has called the so-called green energy programmes a “scam”.

Petro, Colombia’s first left-wing leader, also reflected on his region’s history with colonialism and foreign intervention. He told reporters it was important that Latin America make decisions for itself, free from any outside “coercion”.

“ We don’t operate under blackmail,” he said at one point, in an apparent reference to Trump’s pressure campaigns.

Differing approach to combating drug trafficking

One of the primary points of contention, however, was Petro’s approach to combating drug trafficking.

Colombia is the world’s largest producer of cocaine, responsible for 68 percent of the global supply.

The Trump administration has used the fight against global drug trafficking as a justification for carrying out lethal military strikes in international waters and in Venezuela, despite experts condemning the attacks as illegal under international law.

It has also stripped Colombia of its certification as an ally in its global counter-narcotics operations.

Trump’s White House has said it will consider reversing that decision if Petro takes “more aggressive action to eradicate coca and reduce cocaine production and trafficking”.

But Petro has rejected any attempt to label him as soft on drug trafficking, instead touting the historic drug busts his government has overseen.

He made this argument yet again after Tuesday’s meeting, claiming that no other Colombian administration had done as much as his to fight cocaine trafficking.

Rather than take a militarised approach to destroying crops of coca, the raw ingredient for cocaine, Petro argued that he has had more success with voluntary eradication programmes.

This push, he said, succeeded in “getting thousands of peasant farmers to uproot the plant themselves”.

“These are two different methods, two different ways of understanding how to fight drug trafficking,” Petro said. “One that is brutal and self-interested, and what it ends up doing is promoting mafia powers and drug traffickers, and another approach, which is intelligent, which is effective.”

Petro maintained it was more strategic to go after top drug-ring leaders than to punish impoverished rural farmers by forcibly ripping up their crops.

“I told President Trump, if you want an ally in fighting drug trafficking, it’s going after the top kingpins,” he said.

A Trumpian note

Tuesday’s meeting ultimately marked yet another high-profile reversal for Trump, who has a history of shifting his relationships with world leaders.

Last year, for instance, he lashed out at Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in a public Oval Office clash, only to warm to the wartime leader several months later.

But Colombia is quickly approaching a pivotal presidential election in May, which will see Petro’s left-wing coalition, the Historic Pact, seek to defend the presidency against an ascendant far right.

Petro himself cannot run for consecutive terms under Colombian law. But there is speculation that Tuesday’s detente with Trump may help Petro’s coalition avoid US condemnation ahead of the vote.

Colombia, after all, was until recently the largest recipient of US aid in South America, and it has long harboured close ties with the North American superpower. Straining those ties could therefore be seen as an election liability.

While Petro acknowledged his differences with Trump during his remarks, at times he expressed certain views that overlapped with the US president’s.

Like Trump has in the past, Petro used part of his speech on Tuesday to question the role of the UN in maintaining global security.

“ Did it not show incapacity? Isn’t a reform needed?” Petro asked, wondering aloud if there was “something superior to the United Nations that would bring humanity together better in a better way”.

But when it came to donning Trump’s signature “Make America Great Again” baseball cap, Petro drew a line – or rather, a squiggle.

On social media, he shared an adjustment he made to the cap’s slogan. A jagged, Sharpie-inked “S” amended the phrase to include the entire Western Hemisphere: “Make Americas Great Again.”

US President Donald Trump is set to welcome Colombian President Gustavo Petro only weeks after threatening military action against the South American country.

Feb. 2 (UPI) — A federal judge on Monday blocked the Trump administration from ending Temporary Protected Status for Haitians in the United States, allowing at least half a million people from the island nation to remain in the country.

Judge Ana Reyes of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted a temporary stay for more than 500,000 people from Haiti, who have fled their home country because of the ongoing dangerous instability there, The New York Times and the Guardian reported.

In her 83-page decision, Reyes called the Trump administration’s justification for ending the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program for people from Haiti is flawed, noting that it ignores that “TPS holders already live here, and legally so.”

Congress created the TPS program in 1990 to provide protection for foreign nationals who are in the United States until their countries are safe to return to — be it because of natural disasters, armed conflicts or other dangerous situations — according to a 2025 report from the Congressional Research Service.

Based on current law, the Secretary of Homeland Security can designate people from countries experiencing some type of dangerous circumstances for at least 6 to 18 months, but can extend the time frame based on conditions in these people’s home countries.

As of March 2025, there were more than 1.3 million people in the United States granted TPS status from 17 countries, CRS reported.

Over the course of 2025, however, DHS has revoked TPS status for at least seven of the countries since President Donald Trump was inaugurated back into office in January 2025.

TPS protection for Haitians in the United States, as well as employment authorization, is scheduled to end on Tuesday, according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website, but Reyes’ ruling puts that on hold for an unknown period of time.

Monday’s ruling comes on the heels of three judges of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week ruling against DHS Secretary Kristi Noem’s efforts to end TPS protection not only for people in the U.S. from Haiti, but also from Venezuela.

On Monday evening, DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin told Axios that the administration would appeal the ruling.

“Supreme Court, here we come,” DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said. “Temporary means temporary and the final word will not be from an activist judge legislating from the bench.”

Making his first major post-arrest television interview Monday on “Jimmy Kimmel Live!,” Don Lemon detailed the moments surrounding his incarceration and his experience as a journalist becoming the center of a news story.

“There’s a lot that I cannot say,” Lemon told Kimmel. “But what I will say is that I’m not a protester. I went there to be a journalist. I went there to chronicle and document and record what was happening … I do think that there is a difference between a protester and a journalist.”

The appearance arrived less than a week after the former CNN anchor — now an independent journalist who hosts a YouTube show — was arrested by federal agents in Los Angeles following his coverage of an anti-ICE protest at a Minnesota church earlier this month. Lemon, 59, was released without bond Friday and is expected to plead not guilty, according to his attorneys.

On Monday’s show, Kimmel began the conversation by asking Lemon how he was feeling: “I don’t know — that’s an honest answer,” Lemon said. “I’m OK. I’m not going to let them steal my joy, but this is very serious. These are federal criminal charges.”

Lemon was arrested — along with three others in attendance at the protest — at the direction of Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, who said on X that it was in connection to what she described as a “coordinated attack” on the church, located in St. Paul. Lemon is charged with conspiracy to deprive the church congregants of their rights and interfering by force with someone’s First Amendment rights. Lemon has denied participating in the protest at the church — assembled to decry that an Immigration and Customs Enforcement field officer apparently serves as a pastor there — saying he was present in a journalistic capacity.

Playfully acknowledging that he hasn’t been a favorite of President Trump’s since his time on CNN, Lemon said he hadn’t been concerned about his possible arrest — even with a re-post by Trump calling for it — until it gained steam by members of Trump’s cabinet, including Bondi and Todd Blanche, the U.S. deputy attorney general. Lemon said that after retaining a lawyer and volunteering to turn himself in to handle the matter without fanfare, he “never heard back from them.”

“That is customary in a situation like this, that someone would be allowed to turn themselves in,” Lemon said. “People who are who are accused of much worse things than I am accused of doing, they are allowed the courtesy. I mean, Donald Trump was allowed the courtesy to turn himself in …”

Lemon went on to detail the moments leading up to his arrest Thursday, which came after a night of covering a Grammys event for the Black Music Collective and attending a post-party celebration.

“I got back to the hotel, I walked in with my swag bag from the thing … and I pressed the elevator button and all of a sudden I feel myself being jostled, people trying to grab me and put me in handcuffs,” he recounted. “And I said, ‘What are you doing here?’ And they said, ‘We came to arrest you.’ I said, ‘Who are you?’ Then finally they identified themselves. And I said, ‘If you are who you are, then where’s the warrant?’ And they didn’t have a warrant, so they had to wait for the someone from outside, an FBI guy, to come in to show me a warrant on a cell phone … They took me outside FBI guys were out there. It had to be maybe a dozen people, which is a waste, Jimmy, of resources … They want to embarrass you. They want to intimidate you. They want to instill fear.”

He said he hadn’t realized how much attention his arrest had generated until he saw CNN broadcasting the story on a TV monitor where he was being held.

“I could see ‘Former CNN anchor Don Lemon arrested in Los Angeles,’” he said. “I said to the guy, ‘Is that happening a lot?’ He goes, ‘You’ve been on all morning, yeah. And he says, ‘This is a big deal.’”

During the conversation, Kimmel criticized what he felt was a lack of attention to the recent search by FBI agents of the home of a Washington Post reporter who covers the federal government. Lemon, who parted ways with CNN in 2023, attributed it to a fear among the leaders of corporate press enterprises.

“Corporate media has been neutered right now. They are afraid, and that’s the reason I’m so happy with what I do, because I’m closer to the ground,” he said. “This is not time for folly. It’s not time for false equivalence, and putting people on television and on news programs, giving them a platform, who come on just to lie. …. Some things are objectively bad and I think its important in this time to point that out.”

Lemon hitting the late-night circuit intensifies its spotlight as a free-speech battleground. The Trump era has prompted more pointed and passionate takes from most of the major hosts that, in turn, have captured the attention and ire of the president, who has provoked threats against them and their broadcasters.

Last year, CBS announced it was canceling “The Late Show” after a three-decade run — a decision the company attributed to financial reasons and not, as many have speculated, because of host Stephen Colbert’s criticism of a settlement between the Trump administration and Paramount, the parent company of CBS, over a 2024 “60 Minutes” interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris.

More recently, Kimmel faced a brief suspension last fall over comments regarding the killing of right-wing activist and influencer Charlie Kirk (ABC ultimately reinstated Kimmel following public backlash.) In fact, Lemon referenced that situation prior to his arrest, when a judge dismissed prosectors’ initial charging effort: “This is not a victory lap for me because it’s not over. They’re gonna try again,” Lemon told his followers on his YouTube show after the judge’s ruling. “Go ahead, make me into the new Jimmy Kimmel, if you want.”

Last Friday, addressing a crowd outside the courthouse upon his release, Lemon said, “There is no more important time than right now, this very moment, for a free and independent media that shines a light on the truth and holds those in power accountable. I will not stop now, I will not stop ever.”

Feb. 3 (UPI) — U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on Monday said she attended an FBI search of election offices in Georgia last week at the request of President Donald Trump, defending her and the Trump administration’s role in the law enforcement action against mounting Democratic criticism.

Gabbard has come under growing scrutiny since photographs surfaced showing her with FBI agents executing a search warrant at the Fulton County elections hub, where authorities seized documents related to the 2020 election.

Democratic concerns about alleged Trump administration efforts to undermine the upcoming midterm elections have been stoked by Gabbard’s unprecedented involvement in the raid at Fulton County, prompting House and Senate Democrats on their respective intelligence committees to demand she explain her role.

In a Monday letter addressed to Rep. James Himes, D-Conn., the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, and Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Gabbard said she accompanied FBI personnel “for a brief time” while they executed the search warrant.

“My presence was requested by the President and executed under my broad statutory authority to coordinate, integrate and analyze intelligence related to election security, including counterintelligence, foreign and other malign influence and cybersecurity,” she said.

“ODNI’s Office of General Counsel has found my actions to be consistent and well within my statutory authorities as the Director of National Intelligence.”

In the letter, she told the Democrats that her office “will not irresponsibly share incomplete intelligence assessments,” but she would share them with Congress once they are completed.

Fulton County was the focal point of Trump’s unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election, which he lost to President Joe Biden. Trump and 18 others were later charged in Georgia for their alleged efforts to overturn the state’s results, a racketeering case that was dropped late last year following Trump’s return to the White House.

The letter came as The New York Times reported Monday that a day after the Wednesday raid, Gabbard arranged a phone call between the involved FBI agents and Trump.

“Tulsi Gabbard has no legal role in domestic law enforcement, yet 5 days ago she participated in an FBI raid of Fulton County, Georgia’s election office — the center of Trump’s 2020 election conspiracy theories,” Warner said on X on Monday.

“And now we find out that she orchestrated a call between Trump and the FBI agents conducting the raid? Something’s not passing the smell test…”

Gabbard confirmed the call in her letter Monday, stating: “While visiting the FBI File Office in Atlanta, I thanked the FBI agents for their professionalism and great work, and facilitated a brief phone call for the President to thank the agents personally for their work.”

“He did not ask any questions, nor did he or I issue any directive,” she added.

Cuban diplomat says Havana is ready for dialogue with Washington, but certain things are off the table, including the constitution and its socialist government.

Cuba and the United States are in communication, but the exchanges have not yet evolved into a formal “dialogue”, a Cuban diplomat has said, as US President Donald Trump stepped up pressure on Havana.

Carlos Fernandez de Cossio, Cuba’s deputy foreign minister, told the Reuters news agency on Monday that the US government was aware that Cuba was “ready to have a serious, meaningful and responsible dialogue”.

De Cossio’s statement represents the first hint from Havana that it is in contact with Washington, even if in a limited fashion, as tensions flared in recent weeks amid Trump’s threats against the Cuban government in the aftermath of the US military’s abduction of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, Cuba’s longstanding ally.

“We have had exchange of messages, we have embassies, we have had communications, but we cannot say we have had a table of dialogue,” de Cossio said.

In a separate interview with The Associated Press news agency, De Cossio said, “If we can have a dialogue, maybe that can lead to negotiation.”

The deputy minister also stressed that certain issues are off the table for Cuba, including the country’s constitution, economy, and its socialist system of government.

On Sunday, Trump indicated that the US had begun talks with “the highest people in Cuba”.

“I think we’re going to make a deal with Cuba,” Trump told reporters at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.

Days earlier, Trump had referred to Cuba in an executive order as “an unusual and extraordinary threat” to US national security, and warned other countries he would impose more tariffs on them if they supplied oil to Cuba.

On Monday, Trump reverted to issuing threats to Havana, announcing at the White House that Mexico “is going to cease” sending oil to Cuba, a move that could starve the country of its energy needs.

Mexico, which has yet to comment on Trump’s latest statement, is the largest supplier of oil to Cuba.

Mexico had repeatedly said that it would not stop shipping oil to Cuba for humanitarian reasons, but also expressed concern that it could face reprisals from Trump over its policy.

In recent weeks, the US has moved to block all oil from reaching Cuba, including from Cuba’s ally Venezuela, pushing up prices for food and transportation and prompting severe fuel shortages and hours of blackouts, even in the capital, Havana.

Responding to Trump’s threat regarding oil supplies, Cuba’s De Cossio said that the move would eventually backfire.

“The US… is attempting to force every country in the world not to provide fuel to Cuba. Can that be sustained in the long run?” de Cossio said to Reuters.

The US has imposed decades of crushing sanctions on Cuba, but a crippling economic crisis on the island and stepped-up pressure from the Trump administration have recently brought the conflict to a head.

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Monday that the federal government should “nationalize” elections, repeating — without evidence — his long-running claim that U.S. elections are beset by widespread fraud.

Speaking on a podcast hosted by former FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino, Trump said Republicans should “take over the voting in at least 15 places,” alleging that voting irregularities in what he called “crooked states” are hurting the GOP.

“The Republican ought to nationalize the voting,” Trump said.

The proposal would clash with the Constitution’s long-standing framework that grants states primary authority over election administration, and underscored Trump’s continued efforts to upend voting rules ahead of this year’s midterm elections.

Trump, for example, lamented that Republicans have not been “tougher” on the issue, again asserting without evidence that he lost the 2020 election because undocumented immigrants voted illegally for Democrats.

“If we don’t get them out, Republicans will never win another election,” Trump said. “These people were brought to our country to vote and they vote illegally, and it is amazing that the Republicans are not tougher on it.”

In his remarks, the president suggested that “some interesting things” may come out of Georgia in the near future. Trump did not divulge more details, but was probably teasing what may come after the FBI served a search warrant at the election headquarters of Fulton County, Ga.

Days after FBI agents descended on the election center, the New York Times reported that Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard was with agents at the scene when she called Trump on her cellphone. Trump thanked them for their work, according to the report, an unusual interaction between the president and investigators tied to a politically sensitive inquiry.

In the days leading up to the Georgia search, Trump suggested in a speech during the World Economic Summit in Davos, Switzerland, that criminal charges were imminent in connection to what he called a “rigged” 2020 election.

Georgia has been central to Trump’s 2020 claims. That’s where Trump called Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger on January 2021, asking him to “find” 11,780 votes to overturn the state’s results. Raffensperger refused, affirming that a series of reviews confirmed that Democrat Joe Biden had won the state.

Since returning to office a year ago, Trump has continued to aggressively pushed changes to election rules.

He signed an executive order in March to require proof of U.S. citizenship on election forms, but months later a federal judge barred the Trump administration from doing so, saying the order violated the separation of powers.

“Because our Constitution assigns responsibility for election regulation to the States and to Congress, this Court holds that the President lacks the authority to direct such changes,” Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia wrote in October.

In Congress, several Republican lawmakers have backed legislation to require people provide proof of citizenship before they register to vote.

Some conservatives are using the elections bill as bargaining chip amid negotiations over a spending package that would end a partial government shutdown that began early Saturday.

“ONLY AMERICAN CITIZENS SHOULD BE VOTING IN AMERICAN ELECTIONS. This is common sense not rocket science,” Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) wrote on X on Monday as negotiations were continuing.

Washington, DC – A group of United States citizens and immigrant rights groups has launched a lawsuit seeking to challenge the sweeping suspension of immigrant visa processing for 75 countries by the administration of United States President Donald Trump.

The lawsuit filed on Monday argues that the Trump administration has relied on a false narrative to justify the visa processing suspension, one of the most substantial restrictions on legal immigration in the country’s history.

The lawsuit charges the policy “constitutes an unlawful nationality-based ban on legal immigration and a new set of discriminatory, unlawful public charge rules that strips families and working people of the process guaranteed by law”, according to a case overview by the National Immigration Law Center, which is among the groups supporting the legal challenge.

The sprawling 106-page complaint further alleges that the administration relies “on an unsupported and demonstrably false claim that nationals of the covered countries migrate to the United States to improperly rely on cash welfare and are likely to become ‘public charges’”.

The State Department has described the action, announced in mid-January, as a “pause” on immigrant visa processing on “countries whose migrants take welfare from the American people at unacceptable rates”.

The department has not revealed the criteria it used to determine which countries were added to the list, which comes amid a wider effort to constrict legal immigration pathways into the US and to deport undocumented citizens from the country.

The affected countries include Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Mongolia, Brazil, Colombia, Cambodia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Senegal, Ghana, Somalia and Russia.

The list also includes Kuwait, Jordan, Lebanon, Tunisia, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, as well as several Caribbean, Pacific Island, and Eastern European countries.

Non-immigrant visas, including business and tourist visas, remain exempt.

“The freeze will remain active until the US can ensure that new immigrants will not extract wealth from the American people,” the State Department said in January.

‘Arbitrary, unlawful, and deeply harmful’

More than a dozen organisations and individuals named as plaintiffs in Monday’s lawsuit, as well as the seven legal organisations supporting them, argue the administration’s policy misuses the so-called “public charge” ground for inadmissibility laid out in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

The provision, they argue, is meant to be a determination made on an “individualised” basis that a person risks becoming “primarily and permanently dependent on government for subsistence” if they are granted immigration status.

In turn, they said the administration is violating another provision of the INA, which says “no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence”.

It further argues that the administration has adopted an overly broad interpretation of what constitutes a “public charge”.

The plaintiffs include US citizens who had petitioned and been approved for their family members, including children and spouses, to join them in the US, a process known as “family unification”. Other plaintiffs included foreign nationals approved for immigrant visas through their specialised employment.

Hasan Shafiqullah, immigration supervising attorney at The Legal Aid Society, called the State Department policy “arbitrary, unlawful, and deeply harmful to families who have followed the rules and are simply seeking to reunite with their loved ones”.

Other lawyers supporting the case underscored that the policy disproportionately affects people from Africa, the Middle East, South and Central Asia and Eastern Europe.

Baher Azmy, the legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, accused the administration of relying on “obviously pretextual tropes about nonwhite families undeservedly taking benefits”.

“Congress and the Constitution prohibit white supremacy as grounds for immigration policy.”

The lawsuit further points to “arbitrary and disparaging” statements made by Trump and administration officials about immigrants being likely to receive public benefits.

It notes that most immigrants are ineligible for most government assistance programmes, yet are required to pay local, state, and federal taxes.

The State Department did not reply to a request for comment on the new legislation from Al Jazeera. US agencies typically do not comment on pending litigation.

Chances of success

The odds of success for the new lawsuit, which comes amid a deluge of legal challenges, remained unclear.

Plaintiffs have won at least temporary pauses on several key immigration issues, particularly related to Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to swiftly deport alleged gang members and his effort to end birthright citizenship, as lawsuits make their way through the legal system.

Many more long-term decisions remain elusive.

Meanwhile, in 2018, a 5-4 ruling by the conservative-dominated US Supreme Court upheld Trump’s visa-processing ban on several Muslim-majority countries, including Iran, Syria, Yemen, Libya and Somalia.

In the 2018 ruling, most justices ruled that the president had broad discretion to limit the entry of individuals into the US.

At the time, the Trump administration cited “national security” concerns rather than the “public charge” argument it has used in the most recent suspension.

Feb. 2 (UPI) — President Donald Trump plans to launch a $12 billion stockpile of rare earth minerals to curb U.S. dependence on China.

The project is called Project Vault and it will be funded by a $10 billion loan from the U.S. Export-Import Bank and about $1.67 billion in private capital.

Trump’s plan seeks to procure and store rare-earth minerals that are critical to the automotive, defense, and tech industries. Minerals would be stored for use by U.S. manufacturers.

Some critical minerals that are of interest to tech companies and electric vehicle manufacturers include cobalt, lithium, titanium, silicon, nickel and graphite.

Rare earth minerals have been a focus of Trump’s during his second term. The White House said the United States was reliant on imports of minerals in 2024. Trump has since used mineral acquisition as a key point of international negotiations.

The president has also eyed Greenland for its mineral deposits. He recently alluded to invading Greenland and raising tariffs but walked back that rhetoric at the World Economic Forum last month.

Some companies that are expected to be involved in the Project Vault stockpile include General Motors, Stellantis, Boeing and Google.

BOGOTA, Colombia — President Trump is scheduled to host one of his most vocal regional critics, Colombian President Gustavo Petro, at the White House in a high-stakes meeting analysts suggest could redefine the immediate future of bilateral relations.

Petro has called Trump an “accomplice to genocide” in the Gaza Strip, while the U.S. president called him a “drug lord,” an exchange of insults that escalated with U.S. sanctions against Petro, threats of reciprocal tariffs, the withdrawal of financial aid to Colombia and even the suggestion of a military attack.

Tensions eased in early January when Trump accepted a call from Petro, saying it was a “great honor to speak with the president of Colombia,” who called him to “explain the drug situation and other disagreements.”

The two leaders are expected to meet Tuesday to address strategies for curbing drug trafficking and boosting bilateral trade, while potentially discussing joint operations against Colombian rebel groups fueled by the cocaine trade.

“There’s a lot of space here for mutual cooperation and shared success,” said Elizabeth Dickinson, a Colombia expert at the International Crisis Group.

Combating drug trafficking

Decades of security cooperation once made Colombia the primary U.S. ally in the region, but that relationship has recently faced unprecedented strain.

The two countries have opposing views on how to address the problem of illicit drugs. While the U.S. remains anchored in aggressive eradication and supply-side control, Petro advocates for interdiction, demand reduction and providing economic alternatives for small-scale coca farmers.

In 2025, the U.S. signaled its dissatisfaction with Petro’s anti-drug policy by adding Colombia to a list of nations failing to cooperate in the drug war for the first time in three decades.

Since then, Petro has focused on highlighting the record seizures and claiming that his government has managed to halt the growth of coca leaf crops. However, Colombia’s coca crop has reached historic highs, as the government shifts away from eradication. According to United Nations research, potential cocaine production has surged by at least 65% during the Petro administration, to more than 3,000 tons per year.

The Venezuela factor

The sudden detente between Petro and Trump followed a period of extreme volatility.

Tensions peaked after the Jan. 3 U.S. raid in Caracas that captured then-President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. Petro denounced the operation as an act of “aggression” and a “kidnapping,” blasting the U.S. for what he called an “abhorrent” violation of Latin American sovereignty and a “spectacle of death” comparable to Nazi Germany’s 1937 carpet bombing of Guernica, Spain.

Despite recently calling for Maduro’s return to face Venezuelan justice, Petro’s tone softened significantly during a subsequent hourlong call with Trump, paving the way for their upcoming summit.

Gimena Sánchez-Garzoli, director for the Andes region at the Washington Office on Latin America, a think tank, believes that Trump accepted Petro’s call partly to quell questions about the operation in Venezuela and the growing concern over warnings issued to countries like Colombia.

She also said she considers it likely that both presidents will agree on actions against drug trafficking and a joint fight against the National Liberation Army guerrilla group, which is most active on the border with Venezuela.

‘A quiet, effective cooperation’

Signaling a thaw in relations just days before the White House summit, the Colombian Foreign Ministry announced on Thursday that repatriation flights for deportees from the U.S. have officially resumed.

Images released by the ministry showed citizens arriving at El Dorado airport — a stark contrast to the diplomatic crisis a year ago. At that time, Petro triggered a near trade war by refusing U.S. military deportation flights over “dignity” concerns, only relenting after Trump threatened 50% tariffs and visa cancellations.

“A good outcome [of the meeting] would be that the relationship is cordial, pragmatic, and that the two countries can get back to what they have been doing for years, which is a quiet, effective cooperation on shared security threats,” Dickinson said.

“The less noise there is around the relationship the better.”

Suárez and Rueda write for the Associated Press.

All about the numbers

The Petro administration has also continued to target criminal networks that traffic in cocaine through arrests and the seizure of shipments.

In November, Petro announced the Colombian government had made its largest drug bust in a decade, with law enforcement nabbing nearly 14 tonnes of cocaine.

Gloria Miranda was appointed by Petro in 2024 to lead Colombia’s Directorate for the Substitution of Illicit Crops, the agency overseeing the voluntary eradication efforts.

She believes that the Petro administration’s efforts have been mischaracterised as ineffective.

“There’s been a narrative that Colombia isn’t doing anything in the fight against drug trafficking,” she told Al Jazeera.

“But we’ve seized 276,000 kilogrammes [608,500 pounds] of cocaine, destroyed 18,000 laboratories, arrested 164,000 people, and are replacing more than 30,000 hectares [about 74,100 acres] of illicit crops.”

But critics — including Trump — argue Petro’s measures have yet to translate into results. Coca cultivation and cocaine production remain stubbornly at record levels.

According to the latest United Nations figures, coca cultivation rose in Colombia by about 10 percent in 2023. Potential cocaine output also jumped 53 percent to about 2,600 tonnes.

Petro has questioned the accuracy of those numbers, though. Last week, ahead of Petro’s meeting with Trump, his government announced it would no longer use the United Nations figures, arguing that they rely on an “obscure statistical method”.

Michael Weintraub, the director of the Center for the Study of Security and Drugs (CESED) at the University of the Andes, told Al Jazeera that some of Petro’s pushback is political.

But he added that there is a genuine basis for questioning the UN’s methodology.

“The ‘potential cocaine production’ measure has a lot of baked-in assumptions that make it very difficult to trust,” Weintraub said.

It predicts coca production from selected plots, but yields vary by region and season. The UN itself has admitted there are limitations in its method.

Despite these concerns, coca cultivation in Colombia has trended upward for decades.

Analysts note one overriding factor: demand. Consumption in North America and Europe remains strong, and new markets have emerged in Asia, Africa and South America.

“Coca can only grow in limited places due to climate, soil and elevation,” Weintraub said. “So Colombia is likely to remain a major producer for the foreseeable future.”

Five-year-old Liam Ramos and his father have been released from a US immigration detention facility, following an order by a judge who accused ICE agents of traumatising children as they pursue the Trump administration’s deportation quotas.

ICE agents in California detained several residents, including a US citizen, amid a surge in immigration raids under the Trump administration. Protests under the ‘ICE Out of Everywhere’ campaign erupted across southern California, where demonstrators faced arrests and injuries.

Feb. 2 (UPI) — President Donald Trump has threatened to sue Trevor Noah over a joke the comedian made while hosting Sunday night’s Grammy Awards.

“It looks like I’ll be sending my lawyers to sue this poor, pathetic, talentless dope of an M.C., and suing him for plenty$,” Trump said Sunday night in a statement on his Truth Social media platform.

Trump frequently pursues lawsuits against critics and media organizations over comments he says damaged his reputation, drawing criticism from opponents who accuse him of trying to silence dissent.

Noah, a South African comedian who has hosted the Grammy Awards since 2021, attracted the ire of the American president with a joke about Trump’s relationship with the convicted sex offender and disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.

After awarding singer Billie Eilish the song of the year award, Noah remarked: “That is a Grammy every artist wants — almost as much as Trump wants Greenland, which makes sense, I mean, because Epstein’s island is gone he needs a new one to hang out with Bill Clinton.”

There is no verified evidence that either president visited Epstein’s Little Saint James Island, which has been linked to sex crimes committed by Epstein against minors.

“Noah said, INCORRECTLY about me, that Donald Trump and Bill Clinton spent time on Epstein Island. WRONG!!!” Trump said in his statement.

“I can’t speak for Bill, but I have never been to Epstein Island, nor anywhere close, and until tonight’s false and defamatory statement, have never been accused of being there, not even by the Fake News Media.”

Trump and Epstein, who died in jail by apparent suicide in 2019 while awaiting trial for sex-trafficking charges, were friends dating back to the 1980s. The American president said in July that they had a falling out in the early 2000s after Epstein “stole” spa staff from his Mar-a-Lago resort including Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre, who died by suicide in April.

On Friday, the Justice Department released millions of pages from its investigation into Epstein. Included in the documents were unverified claims and allegations submitted to the FBI that mention Trump in connection with alleged sex crimes involving minors.

Trump has denied wrongdoing. Justice Department Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche told CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday that allegations included in the documents against Trump and others were “very quickly determined to not be credible.”

As the Trump administration ploughs forward with its incendiary policies, European trust in the US government is fading.

Amid tariff threats and pledges to conquer Greenland, citizens and politicians in Europe are unsettled — questioning a long-standing alliance.

Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann (FDP), chair of the Defence Committee in the EU Parliament, claims to have an answer that is “worth its weight in gold”. In this case, the expression is more literal than figurative.

Around 1,236 tonnes of German gold, worth more than €100bn, are sitting in vaults in the US. Strack-Zimmermann has now announced that, in view of Trump’s recent political manoeuvres, it’s no longer justifiable to leave them be. This has reignited a fierce debate: to retrieve or not to retrieve?

The demand to bring gold back to Germany has been around for a long time, with some surveys suggesting that many citizens are in favour of the move. Similar debates are happening in Italy, which has the third-largest gold reserves in the world after the US and Germany.

Why does Germany hold gold in the US?

Germany’s gold reserves amount to around 3,350 tonnes. About 36.6% of this is in the US, a legacy of the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates after World War II.

“At the time, all exchange rates were tied to the dollar, and the dollar was tied to gold,” Dr. Demary, senior economist for Monetary Policy and Financial Markets at the German Economic Institute (IW), told Euronews.

“Germany had large export surpluses with the US, so we accumulated a lot of dollars. To keep exchange rates stable, we exchanged those dollars for gold. That’s how these reserves were built up.”

During the Cold War, it was also practical to store gold abroad, as the US was considered a safe place in case of conflict with the Soviet Union. Over the years, some gold has been repatriated. By 2017, 300 tonnes were brought back from New York, 380 tonnes from Paris, and 900 tonnes from London.

This was part of a Bundesbank plan, unveiled in 2013, to store half of Germany’s gold reserves in Germany from 2020 onwards.

Bringing in the gold treasure: What are the risks?

Strack-Zimmermann and other politicians and economists cite Trump’s unpredictable trade and foreign policy as the reason for moving the gold out of the US.

“Of course, there is always some risk when you keep assets abroad,” said Demary. For example, there is a storage risk if a break-in occurs. But this risk exists whether the gold is stored abroad or in Germany.

“Another possible scenario is that the US government, due to tight currency reserves, could prevent the gold from being transferred,” he explained.

To ensure the safety of gold holdings, the Bundesbank has had to make frequent trips to New York in the past to take an inventory.

“It makes sense to leave this gold in the US in case we have a banking crisis here and need to obtain dollars,” said Demary.

Retrieving the gold could not only be logistically complex, but also risky.

“The gold would have to be transported in armoured vehicles onto a ship, which would also need to be guarded, and then brought back to Frankfurt under security,” added Demary. “There could be robberies, the ship could sink, or the cargo could be seized.”

Is Strack-Zimmermann’s demand pure populism?

Is Strack-Zimmermann’s demand pure symbolic politics? “I think so,” said the economist. “Perhaps it was a political move in response to the tariff threats, saying, ‘We’re bringing our gold back now.’”

According to the economist, it is also possible that Strack-Zimmermann estimated the magnitude of this gold value to be somewhat greater than it really is. In any case, the gold is currently safe in New York, even if Trump wanted to use it to exert pressure on Germany.

“The Federal Reserve is actually independent in its monetary policy. The US government cannot simply intervene. They would have to change laws first,” explained Dr Demary.

Even in the absolute worst case, if the US refused to release the gold, there would still be the option to go to court and enforce its return or receive compensation in dollars, said Demary.

“You have to weigh up the pros and cons and I would say the advantages of leaving the gold in the US outweigh the disadvantages,” he told Euronews.

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Sunday that he will move to close Washington’s Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts for two years starting in July for construction, his latest proposal to upend the storied venue since returning to the White House.

Trump’s announcement on social media follows a wave of cancellations by leading performers, musicians and groups since the president ousted the previous leadership and added his name to the building. Trump made no mention in his post of the recent cancellations.

His proposal, announced days after the premiere of “Melania,” a documentary about the first lady, was shown at the center, is subject to approval by the board of the Kennedy Center, which has been stocked with his handpicked allies. Trump chairs the center’s board of trustees.

“This important decision, based on input from many Highly Respected Experts, will take a tired, broken, and dilapidated Center, one that has been in bad condition, both financially and structurally for many years, and turn it into a World Class Bastion of Arts, Music, and Entertainment,” Trump wrote in his post.

Neither Trump nor Kennedy Center President Ric Grenell, a Trump ally, have provided evidence to back up their claims about the building being in disrepair, and in October, Trump had pledged the center would remain open during renovations. In Sunday’s announcement, he said the center will close July 4, when he said the construction would begin.

“Our goal has always been to not only save and permanently preserve the Center, but to make it the finest Arts Institution in the world,” Grenell said in a post, citing funds Congress approved for repairs.

“This will be a brief closure,” Grenell said. “It desperately needs this renovation and temporarily closing the Center just makes sense — it will enable us to better invest our resources, think bigger and make the historic renovations more comprehensive. It also means we will be finished faster.”

The sudden decision to close and reconstruct the Kennedy Center is certain to spark blowback as Trump revamps the popular venue. The building began as a national cultural center and Congress renamed it as a “living memorial” to President Kennedy — a champion of the arts during his administration — in 1964, in the aftermath of his assassination.

Opened in 1971, it serves as a public showcase year-round for the arts, including the National Symphony Orchestra.

Since Trump returned to the White House, the Kennedy Center is one of many Washington landmarks that he has sought to overhaul in his second term. He demolished the East Wing of the White House and launched a massive $400-million ballroom project, is actively pursuing building a triumphal arch on the other side the Arlington Bridge from the Lincoln Memorial, and has plans for Washington Dulles International Airport.

Leading performing arts groups have pulled out of appearances at the Kennedy Center, most recently composer Philip Glass, who announced his decision to withdraw his Symphony No. 15 “Lincoln” because he said the values of the center today are in “direct conflict” with the message of the piece.

Last month, the Washington National Opera announced that it will move performances away from the Kennedy Center in another high-profile departure after Trump’s takeover of the U.S. capital’s leading performing arts venue.

The head of artistic programming for the center abruptly left his post last week, less than two weeks after being named to the job.

A spokesperson for the Kennedy Center could not immediately be reached and did not respond to an emailed request for comment.

Late last year, as Trump announced his plan to rename the building — adding his name to the building’s main front ahead of that of Kennedy — he drew sharp opposition from members of Congress, and some Kennedy family members.

Kerry Kennedy, a niece of John F. Kennedy, said in a social post on X at the time that she will remove Trump’s name herself with a pickax when his term ends.

Another family member, Maria Shriver, said at the time that it is “beyond comprehension that this sitting president has sought to rename this great memorial dedicated to President Kennedy,” her uncle. “It is beyond wild that he would think adding his name in front of President Kennedy’s name is acceptable. It is not.”

Late Sunday evening, Shriver posted a new comment mimicking Trump’s own voice and style, and suggesting the closure of the venue was meant to deflect from the cancellations.

She said that “entertainers are canceling left and right” and the president has determined that “since the name change no one wants to perform there any longer.”

Trump has decided, she said, it’s best “to close this center down and rebuild a new center” that will bear his name. She asked, “Right?”

One lawmaker, Rep. Joyce Beatty, an Ohio Democrat and ex-officio trustee of the center’s board, sued in December, arguing that “only Congress has the authority to rename the Kennedy Center.”

Price and Mascaro write for the Associated Press. AP writer Darlene Superville contributed to this report.

United States President Donald Trump has announced plans to close the John F Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts for two years for renovations starting in July.

Trump’s announcement on Sunday follows a wave of cancellations by leading performers, musicians and groups since the president ousted the previous leadership and added his name to the building.

Trump made no mention in his post of the recent cancellations.

“I have determined that the fastest way to bring The Trump Kennedy Center to the highest level of Success, Beauty, and Grandeur, is to cease Entertainment Operations for an approximately two year period of time,” he said in a post on his Truth Social platform.

“The temporary closure will produce a much faster and higher quality result!”

The closure will start on July 4, to coincide with the 250th Independence Day celebration.

The decision, Trump said, will be subject to approval of the board, which he handpicked upon taking over as chairman.

The president added that the facility’s various entertainment events – concerts, operas, musicals, ballet performances, and interactive arts – would impede and slow the construction and renovation operations, and that a full temporary closure would be necessary.

“The Trump Kennedy Center, if temporarily closed for Construction, Revitalization, and Complete Rebuilding, can be, without question, the finest Performing Arts Facility of its kind, anywhere in the World,” he said.

“America will be very proud of its new and beautiful Landmark for many generations to come.”

There was no immediate comment from the Kennedy Center.

The complex began as a national cultural centre, but was renamed by Congress as a “living memorial” to former President John F Kennedy in 1964, in the aftermath of his assassination.

Opened in 1971, it operates year-round as a public showcase for the arts, including the National Symphony Orchestra.

After Trump took over as chairman of the centre’s board, several entertainers and performers withdrew their performances in protest of the president’s policies.

Among them were the producers of the award-winning musical Hamilton, and international operatic soprano Renee Fleming.

The Washington National Opera recently announced that it would leave the Kennedy Center, its home since the centre’s opening.

Renowned composer Philip Glass also announced on Wednesday the withdrawal of a symphony orchestra performance for Abraham Lincoln, saying that “the values” of the centre “today” are in “direct conflict” with the message of his piece.

Trump had criticised some of the programmes of the once non-partisan centre as too “woke”.

In recent days, the Kennedy Center hosted the premiere of First Lady Melania Trump’s documentary, which saw a record weekend at the box office, but drew mostly negative reviews from film critics.

The extent of the “complete rebuilding” mentioned by Trump is unclear, but he has described the structure as dilapidated and needing a facelift.

In a post on X, Maria Kennedy Shriver, a niece of the slain former president, criticised Trump’s decision without naming him. She suggested that the closure and renovation were made to distract Americans, as “no one wants to perform there any longer”.

Trump’s rebuilding plans for the centre follow a series of measures to reshape US historical and cultural institutions.

He demolished the East Wing of the White House and launched a massive $400m ballroom project, is actively pursuing the building of a triumphal arch on the other side Arlington Bridge from the Lincoln Memorial, and has plans for the Washington Dulles international airport.

United States plans for Gaza amount to a “theme park of dispossession” for Palestinians, argues Drop Site News Middle East Editor Sharif Abdel Kouddous.

Abdel Kouddous tells host Steve Clemons the draconian measures planned for the two million shell-shocked Palestinians in Gaza are an Orwellian labyrinth of biometrics, bureaucracy and “a lab for government surveillance” – all meant to drive them out.

Noting that Israel hasn’t “gone past phase one” of any ceasefire agreement with an Arab country, Abdel Kouddous warns that Israel is establishing facts on the ground in Gaza – including 50 military bases – “which eventually become permanent”.

US President Donald Trump says Iran is ‘seriously talking’ with the US and hopes that talks with Tehran will lead to a nuclear deal. Trump also reiterated that he’s sending ‘powerful ships’ to the Gulf.